The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. A Train ^talk 17:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Jake Binnall (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only claim for notability is the fact that probably as a publicity stunt at 17 he was a write-in candidate for a state senate primary (but withdrew after failing to receive the necessary votes to continue). The rest of the article covers his positions as a student senator at the University of Massachusetts. Clearly fails WP:NPOLITICIAN and this is a clear case of WP:BIO1E. This is a puff piece for an ambitious young man to further his policial ambitions and in my opinion way WP:TOOSOON. The only active editor is himself. Domdeparis ( talk) 08:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete as per nominator. A young wannabe-politician. He may at some point become notable but for the moment, he's just a student. Neiltonks ( talk) 12:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete: per nom. Fails WP:PROMO, sources are almost all low-circulation county papers which push the "Golly, a 17 year old running for office!" WP:BIO1E angle. Ravenswing 14:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. A person does not get a Wikipedia article just for being a non-winning candidate in an election to the state legislature — and the fact that he would have become the youngest-ever holder of the office if he had won it does not provide a notability boost over other non-winning candidates. Furthermore, this is quite blatantly written as a campaign brochure rather than a genuine encyclopedia article. Bearcat ( talk) 20:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Npolitician. coverage enthusiastic, but not significant enough. Dlohcierekim ( talk) 13:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.